Espinosa v.Atty. Omana, A.C. No.

9081, October 12, 2011

FACTS: On 17 November 1997, Rodolfo Espinosa and his wife Elena Marantal sought Omanas legal advice on whether they could dissolve their marriage
and live separately. Omana prepared a document entitled Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay. Espinosa and Marantal started implanting the conditions of the said
contract. However, Marantal took custody of all their children and took possession of most of the conjugal property. Espinosa sought the advice of Glindo,
his fellow employee who is a law graduate, who informed him that the contract executed by Omana was not valid. They hired the services of a lawyer to file
a complaint against Omana before the IBP-CBD. Omana denied that she prepared the contract. She admitted that Espinosa went to see her and requested for
the notarization of the contract but she told him that it was illegal. Omana alleged that Espinosa returned the next day while she was out of the office and
managed to persuade her part-time office staff to notarize the document. Her office staff forged her signature and notarized the contract.

ISSUE: W/N Omaa violated the CPR in notartizing the Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay. W/N the Kasunduaan ng Paghihiwalay is valid.

HELD: SC has ruled that the extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership without judicial approval is void. The Court has also ruled that a notary
public should not facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and the family by encouraging the separation of the spouses and extrajudicially dissolving the
conjugal partnership, which is exactly what Omaa did in this case.

DOCTRINE:

This case is not novel. This Court has ruled that the extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership without judicial approval is
void.2 The Court has also ruled that a notary public should not facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and the family by
encouraging the separation of the spouses and extrajudicially dissolving the conjugal partnership,3 which is exactly what Omaa did in
this case.1avvphi1

In Selanova v. Judge Mendoza,4 the Court cited a number of cases where the lawyer was sanctioned for notarizing similar documents as the
contract in this case, such as: notarizing a document between the spouses which permitted the husband to take a concubine and allowed the
wife to live with another man, without opposition from each other;5 ratifying a document entitled "Legal Separation" where the couple agreed
to be separated from each other mutually and voluntarily, renouncing their rights and obligations, authorizing each other to remarry, and
renouncing any action that they might have against each other;6 preparing a document authorizing a married couple who had been separated for
nine years to marry again, renouncing the right of action which each may have against the other;7 and preparing a document declaring the
conjugal partnership dissolved.8